Sagadahoc commissioners spar over FY26 budget; generator, facilities and EMA staffing top concerns

Sagadahoc County commissioners spent most of their April 15 meeting debating elements of the proposed fiscal 2026 budget, focusing on a possible courthouse generator purchase, large facilities repairs and whether to restore funding for a proposed EMA coordinator and grant-writing position.

The county’s finance director, Jill Flairke, told commissioners the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) cut about $336,000 from the administrators’ draft — a 2.85% reduction — but the current draft still carries a $13,377,145 tax levy, a 13.55% increase over the prior year. Flairke said the BAC removed $116,800 proposed for a generator and reduced the nonunion cost-of-living adjustment from 3.7% to 3%, saving roughly $13,188.

"I'd like you guys to reconsider that," Flairke said of the smaller COLA, adding she considered the generator a public-safety risk because the county's existing equipment is "on its last legs." She recommended restoring funding for a feasibility study and noted the BAC recommended hiring an electrical engineer to assess actual wiring and equipment needs rather than rely solely on vendor quotes.

Commissioners and department leaders traded options for reducing the levy. Some urged drawing on the county’s surplus and capital reserves (about $1.6 million was described during the meeting as available) or postponing capital projects that can be delayed a year, while others warned that deferring maintenance can increase long-term costs. The county administrator and several commissioners discussed the idea of short-term borrowing — for example, tax-anticipation notes or short loans — versus using reserves now and spreading capital costs later.

Facilities costs were repeatedly identified as the largest single driver of the levy increase. Flairke said the facilities line in the current proposal would total about $637,000 if department requests were accepted in full; the BAC recommendation lowers that but still reflects a large year-over-year increase. Specific capital items discussed included a leaking roof (estimated at $91,000), a cooling tower replacement, cruiser replacements, computer replacements on a multi-year schedule and other deferred maintenance.

Emergency Management Agency (EMA) spending and staffing drew sustained debate. Phil Davis and other EMA advocates urged restoring a requested coordinator/grant writer position removed by the BAC. Davis said the county’s EMA office is smaller than peer counties and that the position would support mitigation planning, regional coordination and grant-seeking for towns that lack those capacities. "I would highly encourage you to put that position back in," Davis told the board.

Opponents on the BAC argued that adding a recurring position in a year of fiscal uncertainty — with potential federal funding changes for FEMA and other programs — is risky. The BAC instead suggested the county rely on regional partners such as MCOG for some services and focus on non-personnel reductions where possible.

Commissioners asked staff to revisit non-personnel service (NPS) lines — professional services, training, minor equipment and similar accounts — to find further reductions, and asked for updated revenue projections from the register of deeds. The board set a follow-up meeting for the next week to refine recommendations: the formal public hearing on the budget is scheduled for April 24 and final recommendations must be ready for that hearing.

No final budget vote was taken at the April 15 meeting; commissioners directed staff and the BAC to pursue additional reductions in NPS lines, to refine estimates of tower-lease savings tied to the county’s radio towers, and to return with updated figures in advance of the public hearing.

"I'm not worried about 0.9," said one commissioner about the COLA debate, "I'm looking at the bigger numbers that are going to impact and bring this down lower than 13.55." The meeting closed the budget segment with agreement to continue work and to finalize recommendations before the public hearing.

Ending: Commissioners said they plan to continue the discussion next week and encouraged department heads to look for achieveable non-personnel savings. The board also asked staff to gather more specific engineering estimates for the generator/transfer-switch options and to return with clarified cost and timing scenarios ahead of the Apr. 24 public hearing.